SynthesisIntegrated environmental assessment and management2025
Guidance for measuring and evaluating biomagnification factors and trophic magnification factors of difficult substances: application to decabromodiphenylethane.
Synthesis in Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Unravelling the magnitude and drivers of PFAS trophic magnification: a meta-analysis.Nature communications · 2025Pooled it
- Integrated in silico and in vivo larvicidal evaluation of compounds targeting juvenile hormone for malaria vector control.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As field based trophic magnification factors (TMFs) and biomagnification factors (BMFs) become more prominent regulatory metrics used in bioaccumulation assessments of commercial chemicals, there is a need to develop standardized guidelines for conducting field-based bioaccumulation studies and to establish methods using weight of evidence analyses of those studies. Hence, the primary objectives of this study were (1) to compile a set of comprehensive criteria and guidelines for conducting field-based biomagnification studies and (2) to develop a weight of evidence meta-analysis for evaluating field-based biomagnification studies and their reported biomagnification metrics for assessing the biomagnification potential of substances. To test the effectiveness of our proposed guidelines and weight of evidence meta-analysis, we reviewed over 25 field studies investigating the biomagnification of decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE), a substance that is considered super-hydrophobic and difficult to test in bioconcentration tests. Approximately half of the field studies that investigated trophic magnification of DBDPE in food webs or biomagnification of DBDPE in predator-prey interactions were considered of acceptable quality, whereas no studies were of high quality. Quality scores of studies statistically decreased with increasing TMF (r2 = 0.261, p = .035) and/or BMF (r2 = 0.238, p = .0024). The weight of evidence meta-analysis indicated with a high level of confidence that concentrations of DBDPE do not biomagnify in top predators and within food-webs. Given the increasing importance of the TMF and BMF for bioaccumulation assessments and the apparent deficiencies in current biomagnification studies identified in this meta-analysis for DBDPE, there is an urgent need to adopt standardized guidelines and procedures for both conducting and evaluating field-based biomagnification studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.